Picture this: Your customer has just discovered an unauthorized charge on their account. Their immediate instinct isn’t to call the merchant — their first action is to contact you for protection and resolution. This make-or-break moment either escalates friction or builds lasting trust.
Fraud happens, but how you handle disputes can determine whether customers trust you or leave you. Your customers measure your bank by how you resolve disputes, but how often are you stress-testing your own processes?
The stakes are high. A frustrating dispute experience drives 66% of customers to consider leaving their banks; 70% say it makes them less likely to adopt new products or services, hurting engagement.
With fraud on the rise — and agentic commerce set to drive a major surge in fraud disputes — financial institutions can’t afford outdated approaches. Many forward-thinking banks are already modernizing with automation and artificial intelligence (AI). But like any business priority, streamlining the process is step one.
The next step is knowing which outcomes define success and tracking them for continuous improvement. There are four key performance indicator (KPI) categories in particular that can help build a strong foundation.
1. Resolution Speed
Fast fraud dispute resolution directly impacts customer satisfaction — 71% of customers lose confidence in their financial institution when dispute processes drag on.
A key metric is days to first credit, which measures how quickly customers are made financially whole. Delays put real pressure on customers, especially in credit card disputes where balances and available credit are directly affected.
The industry average for days to first credit is around 11 days. But top-performing banks aim to provide credit in just one day, providing peace of mind and showing customers their institution is acting quickly on their behalf.
2. Operational Efficiency
Manual dispute processes burden internal teams with time-consuming tasks that drain productivity and cause employee burnout. These bottlenecks inevitably spill over to customers through a worse experience. A key metric to track is disputes processed per investigator per month.
Industry benchmarks show modern automated systems enable investigators to handle 900 to 1,300 disputes monthly versus 300 to 500 with legacy systems. But not all disputes are equal — while automation resolves many cases, complex ones require human oversight. Effective systems balance automation with expertise, letting investigators manage higher volumes with fewer errors while focusing on the most complex cases.
3. Recapture Rate
Fraud dispute management has a clear tie to a financial institution’s bottom line, which is why it’s important to focus on lowering losses and maximizing recaptured dollars. Traditional metrics like chargeback submission and win rates offer only a limited view of financial recovery.
A better measure is the recapture rate, which captures the total value retained from disputes, including chargebacks, merchant refunds and fair denials. This metric provides a clearer picture of overall financial performance.
Financial institutions with comprehensive, well-managed investigations achieve stronger recapture rates. Automation thresholds can enable auto provisioning and provisional credit, allowing institutions to prioritize early investigations before issuing credit, leading to fair denials or well-informed approvals.
Integration is another critical piece. The fraud dispute management platform should connect with the core banking system, giving investigators access to richer data like transaction activity and dispute history. With everything in one place, teams spend less time switching between systems, resulting in stronger outcomes.
4. Recovery Rate
Many financial institutions rely on a stick rate as the primary metric, but this can be misleading. Stick rates show how many disputes stuck, not how many dollars were actually recovered.
A better KPI is the percentage of disputed dollars recovered. This metric reflects both the effectiveness of case work and the institution’s overall financial stewardship.
Banks can improve their recovery rate through clear internal guidelines that help optimize recovery efforts while maintaining compliance, such as setting minimum chargeback thresholds. Institutions should also look beyond the chargeback process by closely monitoring merchant activity for quicker resolution when refunds have already been issued.
Turn Fraud Disputes Into a Competitive Edge
Dispute management will stress-test every bank’s operational efficiency. Manual processes create friction, increase compliance risk and damage the customer experience. But when banks streamline disputes, measure what matters and stay committed to raising their standards, they can transform fraud dispute management from a cost center into a true competitive advantage that builds customer loyalty and differentiates them in the market.
Previous